United States Vs. Buffalo Savings Bank - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation

legalcrystal.com/100726

Court

US Supreme Court

Decided On

Jan-07-1963

Case Number

371 U.S. 228

Appellant

United States

Respondent

Buffalo Savings Bank

Excerpt:.....the court of appeals of new york
syllabus
a bank made a loan secured by a mortgage on real estate. subsequently, the united states filed notice of a federal tax lien against the mortgagor's property. thereafter, liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments attached to the property. the bank instituted foreclosure proceedings, naming the united states as a party.
held:
in distributing the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the property, the federal tax lien should be given priority over the liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments, notwithstanding a state law providing that payments to discharge such state tax liens shall be deemed "expenses" of a mortgage foreclosure sale. pp.
371 u. s. 228
-230.
11 n.y.2d 31,181.....

A bank made a loan secured by a mortgage on real estate. Subsequently, the United States filed notice of a federal tax lien against the mortgagor's property. Thereafter, liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments attached to the property. The bank instituted foreclosure proceedings, naming the United States as a party.

Held:
in distributing the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the property, the federal tax lien should be given priority over the liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments, notwithstanding a state law providing that payments to discharge such state tax liens shall be deemed "expenses" of a mortgage foreclosure sale. Pp.
371 U. S. 228
-230.

11 N.Y.2d 31,181 N.E.2d 413, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

In 1946, respondent Buffalo Savings Bank made a loan secured by a real estate mortgage. The United States filed notice of a federal tax lien against the mortgagor's property in 1953. Thereafter, in 1957 and 1958, liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments attached

to the property. The bank instituted foreclosure proceedings, naming the United States as a party. The trial court's decree ordered the property sold and the payment of local real estate taxes and other assessments as part of the expenses of the sale prior to the satisfaction of the tax lien of the United States. The United States appealed, and the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed, only to be reversed in turn by the New York Court of Appeals, which reinstated the trial court's judgment on the ground that the federal tax lien attached only to the mortgagor's interest in the surplus after the foreclosure sale, and therefore was subordinate to the local taxes as "expenses of sale." 11 N.Y.2d 31, 226 N.Y.S.2d 382, 181 N.E.2d 413.

We must reverse the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals for failure to take proper account of
United States v. New Britain,
347 U. S. 81
. That case rules this one, for there, the Court quite clearly held that federal tax liens have priority over subsequently accruing liens for local real estate taxes, even though the burden of the local taxes in the event of a shortage would fall upon the mortgagee whose claim under state law is subordinate to local tax liens.

A similar argument based on the general character of the federal tax lien was made and specifically rejected in
New Britain.
Moreover, the state may not avoid the priority rules of the federal tax lien by the formalistic device of characterizing subsequently accruing local liens as expenses of sale.
Cf. United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc.,
345 U. S. 361
. Finally, respondent's reliance on
United States v. Brosnan,
363 U. S. 237
, and
Crest Finance Co. v. United States,
368 U. S. 347
, is misplaced.
Brosnan
was concerned with foreclosure procedures, not with priorities, and, in connection with the latter subject, relied